But the question remains; why was it worthwhile to help some foreigners, and yet the mere possibility that this new bill will help some other foreigners is cited by some as a reason to oppose it?
How 'bout we use the numbers from the bill that we’re actually discussing here, and which is being compared to the Gulf War spending? Assuming the numbers cited so far are accurate, it is proposed to spend $7 billion to help 25,000 people (at any one time). That works out to $280,000 a pop.
At that rate, did we get our money’s worth out of the Gulf War?
That footnote you are presumably referring to, #61, is apparently a direct quote from Paul Wolfowitz on May 30, 2003. That is, after the end of major hostilities, and a hell of a long time after the actual invasion began.
Then I will tell you that we were demonizing Saddam back during the Kuwait era, Clinton was demonizing him, we were bombing him daily, and talking heads were discussing what monsters the Baathists were.
I remember all of this, because it triggered many a response from ME of asking why that was sufficient given that many other nations in the region were guilty of equivalent human rights abuses. Iraq was actually one of the BETTER nations in that region by comparison.
And let me just compliment you on your “concede no point until it’s cited, even if the point is obviously true, because eventually your opponent will grow tired of looking shit up and you will win the day” method of debate. It’s quite fetching.
That’s Congress’ reasons for the war. Show me where a White House official sold the war to the American public based on Saddam’s repression of his subjects.
On what previously submitted basis would I possibly concede this point? You yourself know damn well that the war was about Saddam’s WMDs.
Show ME where a White House official “sold” anything to anyone, ever. The White House makes it case to Congress to get authorization for the war. It does so publicly.
Or to put it another way: the White House is responsible for any and all misinformation in that resolution; all the errors about WMD are laid at the feet of George Bush. Right?
But the other part, the part that’s inconvenient for you to admit right now, THAT part was Congress, alone, with no involvement from the White House? Probably Congressional Democrats fought to get it in over Republicans objections, too - right?
Fine.
I assume “George W. Bush” counts as a White House official? Feb 26, 2003:
That was certainly a point, perhaps even the major point.
I wonder why Republicans had no problem with illegal aliens being eligible for compensation from the original 9/11 victim’s fund?
That bill was written by Republicans and received near-unanimous support of that party in both the House and the Senate (only 5 GOP congressmen voted against it). That created a system which handed out an average of nearly $400,000 to the survivors of the 9/11 attacks.
I just don’t understand… why were Republicans in 2001 okay with allowing illegal aliens to get several hundred thousand dollars in cash, but now are against much more modest compensation in 2010?
I think the whole illegal immigrant issue is a complete red herring.
So we invaded Iraq because they violated UN resolutions, even though the UN disapporved of our invasion. Well yeah, since you put it that way it all makes sense.
Adding a provision like that to that bill, or trying to make it about illegal immigrants would have been political suicide for the Republicans. You remember what the attitudes were just after 9/11. If the Republicans had tried something like that, the Democrats would have been able to successfully accuse them of playing politics with 9/11 and not caring about the people who were killed. It would have seemed unpatriotic and callous, not just to Democrats, but to most people across the political spectrum.
Illegal immigration is a bigger issue now and 9/11 a smaller one. There’s less thought about the victims of 9/11 in the public consciousness now. Also, the people affected by this bill aren’t the people who died on 9/11, but people who worked on the cleanup and worked in the general area, and further, we’re not talking about people who died, but just people who may have gotten ill. So there’s less public sympathy for them than there was on Sept. 22, 2001 of the people who died.
Meanwhile, illegal immigration has become more important in the public mind, and feelings against illegal immigrants have increased. The immigration bill passed in Arizona, and something like it is being considered in Colorado, Virginia, and some other places. So a provision saying “Illegal immigrants shouldn’t get benefits” is popular with the public now, while in 2001, it still probably would have been popular, but it wouldn’t have been as high in the public mind and not as guaranteed a vote getter.
Hell, they always say its for the good of the people, to free them from despotism, and so on an so forth. Of course Iraq was about freeing the Iraqi people, just like Grenada was to free the Grenadiers, the “covert” war aginst the Sandanistas was to free the Nicaraguans, Viet Nam to free the Vietnamese, and so on and so forth. Hell, about the only time we told the simple truth was 1941: “We’re going to war because the Japanese attacked us.” Refreshing, that bracing candor.
When have we ever had a war when it wasn’t based solidly on moral principles? When we screwed the Phillipines freedom fighters, after they fought and died as our allies against Spain, the ground was littered with pious speeches about bringing them civilization and Christianity (to a nation about 90% Catholic).
We fought and killed to bring “democracy” to South Korea, then handed them over to the police terror state of Syngman Rhee. Its a wonder we don’t invade Canada to protect them from bears!
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” - Thomas Jefferson
There’s nothing in the relevant UN resolutions that says any party can unilaterally decide when they’ve been violated and what the reaction to these violations should be. The US said invading Iraq was justified by violation of UN resolutions, but the party that matters, the UNSC, did not.
I wonder how Saddam Hussein’s brutal suppression of Iraqis threatened international peace anyway. Sounds like ohmygodwontsomeonethinkofthechildren kind of talk to me.